In business are CORPORATE ETHICS and SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY major factors to the progression and wellbeing of our world. On one hand, experts state that the world’s leading corporation stand behind 70% of carbon pollutions. In contrast, the corporations respond by stating objectives and mission statements which demonstrate their corporate social responsibility (CSR) along with other ethical tools.
CORPORATE ETHICS AND THE IMPACT OF CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY will be explained in this first post out of 3 (CSR - ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY). It is a first step to describe a complete inside-view in how the trendy corporate social responsibility manages to save face throughout the global organizations. Following 2 posts will complete the full perspective behind corporate social responsibility. These will be Corporate earnings followed by Results.
I have lived and worked among several major corporations throughout Asia. My biggest focus has been on CSR and management at a whole. In my role, I have had a deep inside view in organizations varying from the world’s biggest hotel chains to China-located chemical factories. These may seem as major contrasts, but they do not vary much in terms of ethics, either on an individual or at a corporate scale.
How can this be that chemicals, in broad being comprehended as being pollution, have a similar ethical impact (on a moral scale) as a service-based organization? It is a fundamentally easy answer. Their operation stands for an equal amount of good as it makes a negative impact. A chemical is for example a lifesaving ingredient in medicine, as the "service industry" accommodates tourists vital needs and also generate boost in GPA. However, on corporate social responsibility and by ethical responsibility terms, what it takes to be a leader in either field usually comes down to pricing and mass production. Therefore, (CSR) organizations show both a good and a bad ethical responsibility.
No matter what an organizations focus is upon, it will always have a negative impact. As human behavior push for better and cheaper, in addition to the rapidly growing middle class, I suspect 99% of companies need to hide black holes in their operations to keep fulfilling growing needs. In honesty, from the around 50 large organizations which I have physically analyzed, a fairer statistic would amount up to 100% undertaking a negative ethical responsibility.
Out of the previously mentioned organizations, 100% perform CSR, in its most ethically responsible form. The Chinese factory for example, feeds an entire village, as it constructed vital facilities around this area. It has at a small cost built up a security which most likely would be lost if "top" ranked internationally focused communist leaders would find out. A western contrast works more through media exposure and promises. To highlight CSR, "we are ethical", "we reduce carbon emissions", "we give back to the community". Legally it is flawless, but giving back as little as 0.1% of profits to the local community is ethically wrong. Even 10% would be wrong, as it is 100% operated in that country.
Nowadays, people cannot even trust the Red Cross with their donations as occasional executives have been caught for theft. You think that is it, what about the ones that have not been caught? In CSR business operations, effective work means teamwork. I love to bring up my experiences with the police force, true blue collar workers. They are truly socially corporately responsible. But their wages, their sticking togetherness, life or death situations, are keys in which a bad situation goes unheard of. Altogether, I personally like Corporate Social Responsibility, It is however today a colossal upside of unethical responsibility that requires progression to fulfill its purpose.
corporate social responsibility (csr) is the real deal!!
ReplyDeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteI really like that you were so through with everything that you mentioned. You even went into how, any more, people have become more about quantity versus quality, and this is something that I believe to be a very detrimental thing to society as a whole because it is not enough to have quantity, but quality is just as important because without it, one can have 20 different things, but with little quality to them, they will become worthless in no time. It is the responsibility of the corporation to ensure that the quality is equal, if not more, to the quantity of their services, product, etc. I think that this relates to what the authors of Ethics in Human Communication (2008) would say when it comes to the authors of moralities of everyday life, "There is a close relationship between responsibility and intent - we are responsible for what we intend to do, what we are trying to do. Nevertheless they argue the position that people are responsible for all that they cause so long as they can see that they cause it and can do otherwise. We may feel responsible only for what we intend; we are responsible for all that we do." I thought that your blog related to this very well, and I look forward to reading more of what you have to say on the subject.
Laura Henning
Undergraduat Student
Drury University
Johannesen, R.L., Valde, K.S., Whedbee, K.E., (2008) Ethics in Human Communication, (6th Ed.) Long Grove, Ill. Waveland Press